Derek Chauvin was not a racist

1815

rating

debates

100.0%

won

Description

Derek Chauvin: the man who killed George Floyd.

Racist: prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

Round 1

04.25.2022 06:46PM

Pro

Resolved: Derek Chauvin was not a racist

NOTES

The word "was" in the resolution is not semantics, just a wording mistake. Derek Chauvin is not dead for clarification. Feel free to replace it with "is" in your assessments.

FRAMEWORK

Derek Chauvin: Derek Michael Chauvin is an American former police officer who was convicted for the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Chauvin was a member of the Minneapolis Police Department from 2001 to 2020 [1].
Racist: (not of a statement, of a person: to be a racist)
a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized [google/oxford languages].

Saying something racist vs being a racist: It is perhaps important to note that someone merely having said something racist or interpreted to be racist in the past is not enough to categorize them as a racist.

Foremost, it must be sufficiently justified if they have said something racist
Secondly, there must be a defined pattern of racism that clearly shows the individual has a prejudice or hatred for a particular race.
Conder this analogy; many comedians make jokes based on cliche racial stereotypes, but that does not make them racist as the majority are there to entertain and have no hatred or prejudice against any group.

Finally, the Burden of Proof is entirely on CON here. CON has to make some argument or produce any evidence that Derek Chauvin was racist.

OVV

As a brief overview on May 25, 2020, Former Police Officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for reportedly over 7 minutes. This apprehension was due to a report of him allegedly supplying counterfeit dollar bills in a purchase and refusing to recant them to pay for a pack of cigarettes. We are debating today, whether this man was a racist. I can't personally make any rationalization that categorizes him in this manner.

ANALYSIS

I will some possible exceptions to the resolution here.
One could argue something like this: Derek Chauvin killed Geroge Floyd (a black man) and therefore he is a racist.

The problem with that argument is that many black police officers are just as likely to kill black men. A large study analysis titled "Officer Characteristics and Racial Disparities in Fatal Officer-Involved Shootings" found that there was "no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and that "White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers" [2].

But let's say thats not enough for this individual and the person argues that ALL policemen are racist against black people and therefore Dererk Chauvin is a racist.

Well, the issue in this argument is that the first premise is incorrect, making the argument unsound.
There is no evidence that all policemen are racist against black people. There is more evidence that the police are anti-racist in favor of them. For example, a study conducted by Washington State University found that, as police1 by lexipol reports, policemen are more hesitant to shoot black people.

Officers were “marginally” (although “not significantly”) quicker to shoot when fatigued than when rested — but on average they still took fractions of a second longer before deciding to shoot armed black suspects than armed white suspects" [4].
As to mistake-of-fact shootings, “the officers were more likely to shoot unarmed white suspects than unarmed black suspects in both fatigued and rested conditions,” James writes. Rested, “officers collectively shot 31 unarmed white suspects (3.6 percent of the total) and 2 unarmed black suspects (0.3 percent).” In the fatigued condition, they inexplicably showed an improvement in judgment, collectively shooting “23 unarmed white suspects (2.8 percent) and 0 unarmed black suspects (0.0 percent)” [4].
“No significant differences [in results] were observed [as to] participant gender and race,” the researchers report. “The key indication of the findings,” James writes, “is that both officers’ decisions to shoot and their tendency to be more hesitant to shoot black suspects than white suspects appeared to be unaffected by officer fatigue” [4].

Having gone through these potential bad arguments, what we need is actual concrete evidence proving that Derek Chauvin is a racist. Moving forward, CON has the burden of proof and must provide any evidence, or make an argument that demonstrates this.
I don't believe this evidence exists. And hopefully, by the end of this, you will agree with me.

SOURCES

04.28.2022 06:32AM

Con

Preamble/Framework:

By just about any metric to measure racism, Derek Chauvin (DC) is indeed quantifiably racist.

I shall directly prove he is racist under the simple angle (to be expanded in its own section below):

A History of Targeted Racial Violence

Burden of Proof (BoP)

Most obviously pro is making the claim, and was warned how badly flawed it was but insisted on proceeding [1]. He willingly set himself the herculean task of firmly proving a negative directly against a preponderance of evidence.

Given that DC literally murdered someone, I feel it’s safe to assume a legal standard.

In legal terms, pro is a prosecutor, trying to prove DC is not racist beyond all reasonable doubt [2].

As con I’m the defense, which doesn’t absolve me from all BoP, but I just need to cast reasonable doubt upon any case pro may bring. This may be done either by cross examining pro’s evidence or by bringing counterevidence (both of which I shall do).

Definitions

I hope we don’t need to get stringent on this with semantic games, but for quick reference here’s a some I expect to be coming back to a lot:

Reasonable doubt: “means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial” [2].
Racist as defined by pro: “a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”
Antagonistic from pro’s preferred dictionary: “Showing or feeling active opposition or hostility toward someone or something.”

Further, racism is a complex topic. There are many forms of racism, and levels of racism within any form.

“Saying something racist vs being a racist”

I agree with pro that a single past statement does not damn someone as a racist.

I agree that some pattern must exist to be indicative of prejudice and/or antagonism toward one or more races.

As for the comedian analogy: The comedian has demonstrated a pattern of prejudice and/or antagonism on the basis of race, and is therefore a racist comedian; if they secretly in their heart don’t feel that way, does not change the outward pattern of racist actions they have taken.

1. A History of Targeted Racial Violence:

DC has a history of inflicting violence against minorities, especially African Americans. He does this in a disproportionate manner showing clear prejudice and antagonism. Were he an equal opportunity offender, for every 1 African American person he murdered, there should have likewise been 3 white victims.

This is supported by the US Census, which estimates the local population contains the following [3]:

White = 62.9%
African American = 18.9%
Hispanic or Latino =9.6%
American Indian or Alaska Native = 1.4%

George Floyd

9 minutes 29 seconds [4]. This needs to be said due to continued disinformation. Further, unlike the example of one bad statement, this prolonged encounter shows enough layers of DC’s antagonism and prejudice toward African Americans to be indicative of a pattern.

DC murdered George Floyd, at great personal cost to himself.

During the murder, DC was told 27 separate times by a breathing expert with 46 years’ experience, that the victim could not breath; the expert was African American, and DC wholly ignored the advice. Another breathing expert with 26 years’ experience (fellow officer Alexander Kueng) likewise advised DC that George Floyd no longer had a pulse, also an African American and was of course ignored [4]. Had DC respected superior knowledge when it comes from African Americans, he would not be in prison and George Floyd would still be alive.

DC’s continued the pattern of racism against African Americans throughout his defense, by using a series of badly cliché racist excuses[5].

Additionally, the crime George Floyd was accused of is a non-violent misdemeanor. Comparatively, DC probably wrote white people hundreds if not thousands of speeding tickets (another non-violent misdemeanor) without murdering any of them.

Zoya Code

DC assaulted and tortured Zoya Code, an African American woman who offered no resistance [6].

This expands the pattern of prejudice and antagonism toward African Americans, verifying it was not a one-time thing.

Other Excessive Force

DC is confirmed to have used excessive force against 6 people prior to George Floyd. Of them two were African Americans, one was Latino, and one was Native American [6]; with the remaining two undocumented. DC has zero known cases of targeting any member of the white majority population with excessive force.

Rebuttals:

Not only has pro failed to provide any direct evidence in support of his resolution; but if basic critical thinking is applied to pro’s analysis, it self-refutes his conclusion.

“White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers”

Irrelevant. DC is not accused of shooting anyone.

“Policemen are more hesitant to shoot black people”

If we assume this applies outside of firearms, this only compounds that DC was racist due to him committing crimes toward African Americans when other cops would apparently be more hesitant and/or opt to select white victims instead.

Sources:

Round 2

05.01.2022 05:48AM

Pro

FRAMEWORK

CON agrees to the definition of a racist
CON agrees that saying something racist doesn't make someone a racist.

CON says "Given that DC literally murdered someone, I feel it’s safe to assume a legal standard"

CON himself says he will assume a legal standard.
So following my opponent's logic they must also accept the fundamental principle of the legal system: INNOCENT until proven guilty.
FAIR TRIALS says that "A fundamental principle behind the right to a fair trial is that every person should be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty" [19]. If CON assumes a legal standard, he must also agree to this principle, and if he does, then he would also agree that Chauvin is innocent of any allegation of being racist until proven guilty.

BURDEN OF PROOF

As for the burden of proof, it is irrelevant as to who created the resolution of the debate, the resolution simply is a proposition we have agreed to debate upon. Now if we make a claim WITHIN a debate, we of course have to provide evidence for it, and that I have done consistently unlike my opponent, but a resolution is simply "a specific statement or question up for debate" [20]. The person that made it is totally immaterial.
So CON is incorrect in his assessment here, as he maintains a fairly large burden in proving that Derek Chauvin is a racist.
In round one I said that CON has to make some argument or produce any evidence that Derek Chauvin was racist. CON has not done this successfully.

So this brings the question, why is Derek Chauvin NOT a racist?

Well, it's pretty simple. We make claims based on evidence. There exists no evidence that Derek Chauvin is a racist, therefore Chauvin is not a racist.
On the killing of Floyd Minnesota's black democrat attorney general Keith Ellington who LED the prosecution of Derek Chauvin [21] was pretty explicit in stating that they had no evidence of a racist motivation from Chauvin.
When interviewer Scott Pelley asked Ellison whether the murder was a hate crime, the prosecutor replied: "I wouldn't call it that because hate crimes are crimes where there's an explicit motive and of bias. We don't have any evidence that Derek Chauvin factored in George Floyd's race as he did what he did" [22].
This means the head and overseer of the entire city prosecution of Floyd's case admitted that through their large and extensive process of review, research, analysis of every aspect of the available camera footage, analysis of Derek's history, police records, and social media records, they found NO EVIDENCE of any racial motivation directly going against my opponent's implication that the killing was racially motivated.

CON says "I shall directly prove he is racist under the simple angle (to be expanded in its section below): A History of Targeted Racial Violence"

CON makes this the basis of his entire argument. For him to prove which he himself says he will directly prove, he must demonstrate each aspect of this line of reasoning. He must prove that the violence is targeted racial violence.

As defined by CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY, targetted means "directed at a particular group or activity" [6].
Oxford languages defines "racial" as "on the grounds of or connected with difference in race or ethnicity" [7].

Therefore connecting the two terms, CON must show that Derek Chauvin is targetting people racially; he must be deliberately targetting black people solely because they are black. As I will show, CON fails to discover a causal link between race and any incident of violence.

REBUTTALS

"DC has a history of inflicting violence against minorities, especially African Americans. He does this in a disproportionate manner showing clear prejudice and antagonism. Were he an equal opportunity offender, for every 1 African American person he murdered, there should have likewise been 3 white victims"

Such a claim is patently absurd as it ignores many different relevant factors. Firstly the statistic CON provides represents the ENTIRE POPULATION as opposed to CRIMINALS. This is actually shockingly disingenuous. Not only does it trivialize criminality, but it IGNORES the situations and experiences of police officers in an extremely anti-intellectual manner.

Secondly, my opponent's case is to be ONLY true in a hypothetical moral vacuum eg if police officers are given photos of the population and then asked to make arrests based on appearances and there is a relevant correlation between race and arrest. However, in the real world, officers arrest based on whether the suspect is acting suspiciously or aggressively.

More ignorantly, the claim assumes that all racial groups commit crimes at the same rates and have encounters with police officers at the same rates.
We know Geroge Floyd was arrested for using counterfeit bills [8] so let's use his crime as an example.
According to the United States Sentencing Commission, black people account for 38.1% of counterfeiting offenses [12] despite only being 13% of the population. Therefore black people commit these offenses at significantly higher rates than white people.
According to the FBI crime data explorer, in Minnesota, Black people commit violent crimes at rates of almost 2 times that of white people [1].
Lastly, according to the FBI U.S Department of Justice, African Americans committed 51.1 percent of murders [23].
It appears to be a statistical fact that black people commit crimes at greater rates than any others. For this reason, it's illogical to expect people to be killed by police in proportion to their population as officers will be in significantly more fatal situations with black people.

This claim ignores factors of location, for example, black neighborhoods/communities have significantly higher rates of crime than white neighborhoods/communities [3]. Because of this it only makes sense that most police interactions would occur in these communities, and this would explain the statistical imbalance in police killings.

This claim even ignores basic logic. Following CON's logic, if a black police officer has killed ONE PERSON, and that person was not of his OWN RACE it shows clear prejudice and antagonism.
This has actually happened. Black police officer Mohamed Noor (also in Minneapolis) shot and killed an UNARMED white woman Justine Damond who was innocent of ANY crime and had called the police to report a suspected rape [14].
There is no evidence that Noor is prejudiced, or antagonistic towards any race, and he isn't, but following CON's logic, this man is a racist.
Further, following CON's logic, the policeman that shot and killed Mhakia Bryant, to SAVE another black woman's life who Bryant swung a knife at, attempting to kill her [24] is simply prejudiced and antagonistic.
Voters, the choice is easy. CON's arguments are antithetical to any form of nuance, or consideration. My arguments use basic logic, while CON cries "antagonism" in the most unreasonable ways.

A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE WITH CON'S CASE

CON subjectively locates “race” as the means for discrimination, but his entire case can also be used to “prove” discrimination against height, weight, hair color, and any other physical properties.
Let's agree that by truism, there is a certain height Derek Chauvin arrests the most. Just as there is a certain hair color, and eye color. Following my opponent's logic, this would be "eye color discrimination," "hair color racism," "height discrimination," and "weight antagonism." As long as CON fails to establish a causal link, his argument is meaningless as it applies to all these other features.

GEORGE FLOYD + CON LYING ABOUT SOURCES

"During the murder, DC was told 27 separate times by a breathing expert with 46 years’ experience, that the victim could not breath; the expert was African American, and DC wholly ignored the advice. Another breathing expert with 26 years’ experience (fellow officer Alexander Kueng) likewise advised DC that George Floyd no longer had a pulse, also an African American and was of course ignored [4]. Had DC respected superior knowledge when it comes from African Americans, he would not be in prison and George Floyd would still be alive"

Let's take this point by point. As we do so, you will discover that CON lies multiple times here. I ask the voters to please read this section carefully.
Firstly, CON says that "DC was told 27 separate times by a breathing expert with 46 years’ experience, that the victim could not breath[e]."

This is a LIE. It was George Floyd HIMSELF that said this, no one else. Nowhere in CON's source did it say a breathing expert with 46 years of experience said this. Why would a breathing expert even be making an arrest with a police squad?
To further prove this INDEPENDENCE reports that "Jurors also watched a long section of video that a bystander shot of the arrest, where state attorneys said Mr Floyd pleaded over and over again—27 times in one form or another—that he couldn’t breathe, before losing consciousness and falling limp" [4].
The medical expert of 46 years CON refers to was NOT present during the shooting. His name is Dr. Martin Tobin and he expert witness who testified in COURT [15] He is also a WHITE MAN, CON lied about him being African American.

CON says that "Another breathing expert with 26 years’ experience (fellow officer Alexander Kueng) likewise advised DC that George Floyd no longer had a pulse, also an African American and was of course ignored"

CON lies about this as well. Alexander Kueng is NOT a breathing expert. He is a fellow officer of Chauvin and the youngest officer involved in the George Floyd events.
There is no reason a breathing expert would be making a police arrest, and CON's video source does NOT say this.
I don't even know where CON got this "26 years of experience because Alexander Keung was "27 years old when he was involved in Floyd's fatal arrest on May 25, 2020" [5].
So was he 1 year old when he supposedly became a "breathing expert"? CON completely made this up.

That is sufficient evidence that CON lied about both claims.
Now, why would the officers including Chauvin not believe Floyd saying he can't breathe? This is because he had been saying this multiple times even LONG BEFORE he was placed on the ground [25]. Throughout the interaction, he was acting so delusional and peculiar they suspected he was intoxicated on alcohol (obviously this was discovered to be large almost fatal doses of fentanyl) and this is a reason they may have simply ignored his statements.

CON says "Additionally, the crime George Floyd was accused of is a non-violent misdemeanor. Comparatively, DC probably wrote white people hundreds if not thousands of speeding tickets (another non-violent misdemeanor) without murdering any of them"

This comparison fails because it assumes all non-violent crimes are the same, and secondly, that all circumstances in which the law is enforced against them are the same.
Writing and administering a speeding ticket involves little to no physical interaction, and it hardly ever involves arrest.
Geroge Floyd was arrested for paying for cigarettes with counterfeit money, and more counterfeit bills were later found in his possession [8]. This is a crime in which one would physically be arrested.
CON also says the crime was a misdemeanor, but according to the Law Office of Brett H. Pritchard: "using counterfeit money is a felony under federal law punishable by up to 20 years in prison in addition to hefty fines" [9].
CON says DC probably wrote white people hundreds if not thousands of speeding tickets "without murdering any of them" but DC also probably wrote black people hundreds if not thousands of speeding tickets without murdering them. So this fails to indicate any racial motivation or bias.
Ultimately CON paints an extremely unrealistic and ridiculous black and white picture. While I agree that Georges Floyd's death was unfortunate the killing on its own does not prove that Chauvin is a racist. Body Camera footage shows George Floyd resisting arrest saying many different times: one example showing resisting and fighting/struggling against entering the police car "saying he is claustrophobic and has anxiety" [10] even after an officer told Floyd he would "he will roll the windows down and turn the air conditioning on" [25]. Resisting arrest almost always escalates police situations, and this is what led to Floyd being placed on the ground in the first place.

CON says "DC’s continued the pattern of racism against African Americans throughout his defense, by using a series of badly cliché racist excuses"

CON appears to believe the arguments presented by the Defense Lawyers of Chauvin are racist and therefore Derek Chauvin is a racist (presumably?). Both claims are patently false.
To justify this claim, CON cites an opinion article written in Berkeley News.
The central argument of the opinion article that my opponent defends is that the defense's argument that George Floyd "died due to his drug intake and a heart condition" is racist, however, this is false. George Floyd having previous health conditions, and a considerable dosage of fentanyl in his system are facts relevant to the legal case because they all played a role/contributed to Floyd's death.
To establish the facts there, George Floyd had heart disease [17] and at the time of his arrested "Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system" [18]. In his testimony, Dr. Andrew Baker, Hennepin County Medical Examiner says that "If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3" [18].
Even expert testimony from forensic pathologist and former chief medical examiner for the state of Maryland David Fowler recognizes these facts played a role or led to his death. As the Los Angeles Times reports: "Dr. David Fowler, a former chief medical examiner for the state of Maryland and now a member of a consulting firm, said the fentanyl and methamphetamine in Floyd’s system, and possible carbon monoxide poisoning from auto exhaust, were contributing factors in the 46-year-old Black man’s death last May" [16].
To put it bluntly, CON's argument here is that facts are racist. It appears CON has forgotten the definition of racism as "prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
Relevant observations supported by evidence and examinations of medical field experts aren't racist in any way. They aren't biased against anyone because they are objectively determined judgments.

ZOYA CODE

As CON's own source states: "Code’s mother had accused her of trying to choke her with an extension cord, according to the arrest report." Chauvin, in this case, was responding to a call of domestic abuse which is a violent crime.
According to FBI crime statistics, black people commit violent crimes are over 2 times the rate of white people [2], and black families have significantly disproportionate rates of domestic violence [11]. Because of this, this incident does not indicate racial bias because black families are simply more likely to have domestic disputes that involve the police.
CON says that she offered no resistance, but this was when she was already on the ground. Similar to the George Floyd case, the reason she was initially placed on the ground was that she offered resistance by pulling away as CON's source says: "when she pulled away, he pulled her to the ground face first and knelt on her."
The mere fact that this person is black does not indicate any targeting or bias Black people disproportionately commit these crimes, and the fact that Chauvin brought her to the ground does not indicate bais as she resisted arrest, but that she was being resiting, suspicious, or aggressive.
This could show Chauvin has a history of using neck restraints, but I didn't realize we are debating whether or not Chauvin is a good police officer, we are debating whether or not he is a racist. CON fails to prove he is.

OTHER INCIDENTS

CON says that DC "is confirmed to have used excessive force against 6 people prior to George Floyd. Of them two were African Americans, one was Latino, and one was Native American [6]; with the remaining two undocumented. DC has zero known cases of targeting any member of the white majority population with excessive force."

We have established that CON's use of the general population as opposed to the CRIMINAL POPULATION as a standard is illogical.
CON again cherrypicks data and establishes no causal link between the races of the individuals and the alleged use of force against them. This again could apply to any other characteristic: hair color, eye color, height, weight, etc, by nature of truism.

REFUTING CON'S REBUTTALS

Irrelevant. DC is not accused of shooting anyone.

Not irrelevant in any way. If policemen/women are not more likely to shoot black people, this suggests that there is no evidence of any racial target placed against them, and immediately gets rid of the potential objection that white policemen are racist or biased against African Americans.

Completely off. It implies if anything that Chauvin would not deliberately seek out victims of any race because police officers don't do this. Because we have evidence that police officers are more hesitant to shoot/kill black people we know that once again, we cannot expect any racial motivations or actions of racially targeted violence.

CON'S SOURCES

I have successfully turned CON's video source 4 (from round one) against him by pointing out how he lied about every claim he made from it.

SOURCES

05.03.2022 07:29AM

Con

While Pro has engaged in a racist Non Sequitur [1] Gish Gallop [2] constructed of Red Herrings [3], he has yet to make any attempt to prove that DC is not racist; nor has he offered any effective challenge that there is a clear pattern shown in DCs actions against several African Americans. Obviously extend all.

This round I’ll offer a distillation, before proceeding to the lengthy replies. Out of respect for potential voters, I suggest pro do likewise.

My Case Distilled:

P1: If somehow shows a pattern of prejudice or hatred against a certain race, they are racist.
P2: DC has shown such a pattern against African Americans..
C1: Therefore, DC is racist.

DC literally attacking and torturing (and in one case murdering) George Floyd, Zoya Code, and others has not been denied. It has been contrasted against his null rate of targeting white people, to confirm it is indeed a prejudice (and a directly harmful one at that).

Pro is of course welcome to present a syllogism showing how DC is not a racist.

…

Framework:

DC being racist is well documented common knowledge, going all the way up to the president of the United States calling him out on it [4]. Much like the sun rising tomorrow, without any evidence that this assessment is wrong, it stands as the default until there is some reason to suggest otherwise.

Burden of Proof (BoP)

Pro is disagreeing with his own source in trying to flip the BoP, when his source actually says it’s his duty to affirm his resolution:

Affirmative/Pro. The side that “affirms” the resolution (is “pro” the issue). For example, the affirmative side in a debate using the resolution of policy, Resolved: The United States federal government should implement a poverty reduction program for its citizens, would advocate for federal government implementation of a poverty reduction program.

Granted, said source also specifies I should argue against the resolution; but I have already done so with strong evidence of DC’s racist crime pattern.

As pro has obviously not read his source, it is clear evidence of a desperate tactic to source spam, AKA, Gish Galloping sources [2].

Pro has also hid into the BoP section an absurd claim that no one is racist unless convicted in a court of law of the crime of racism (also it’s not a crime in itself, but rather a motivator for crimes and general douchebaggery). I hate to pull the Hitler card, but not even Hitler would be racist according to pro’s new standard. Thus we should use the original agreed upon standard of a demonstrated pattern.

Definitions

Pro is now trying to cherry pick [5] a different dictionary each time a new keyword is mentioned. I have already agreed to use his original preferred dictionary of Google, save for specialized terms (such fallacy types, or legal definitions from the state in question… Minnesota, which pro uses sources to assert is somehow part of Texas; again, his case is Non Sequitur [1]).

Pro offers no value in sliding the goalposts around at random multiple times per round. It’s part of his Red Herring [3] tactics to distract from the actual issue. We should all safely assume common English and move on with the topical debate.

1. A History of Targeted Racial Violence:

Pro literally replied with 14 separate paragraphs, for my very concise introduction to this section. Hence, I have called him out for Gish Galloping [2]. I’ll respond to a few of them to get the theme across.

To summarize pro’s case: He has failed to show any white victims from DC (not even surviving ones), and implies that this is because only black people commit crimes. Statistically this is untrue of the area, even while there is very troubling Racial Disparity against African Americans at the hands of DC and other racists as reported by Minnesota Public Radio [6]:

Analysis of police stops in Minneapolis and St. Paul shows black men are stopped at a rate far greater than their presence in the population. Once in the criminal justice system, black men in Minnesota are prosecuted, convicted and sentenced at a higher rate than whites. … If convicted, they are sentenced to time behind bars at three times the rate of whites guilty of the same offense.

Granted the state is making efforts to improve, as evidenced by it no longer mandating 4 years minimum prison time for most African American cocaine offenders vs mere probation for most white cocaine offenders.

Of course, pro has repeatedly insisted police officers other than DC do not contribute to this disparity, which further cements DC as a huge racist.

“According to the FBI crime data explorer, in Minnesota, Black people commit violent crimes at rates of almost 2 times that of white people”

Given that the murder victim was accused (not convicted) of a non-violent crime, this is purely a Red Herring [3].

That said, were it applicable (and ignoring the disparity I’ve shown above); it would not change the thrust of the issue that DC targets African Americans for his violent outbursts disproportionally to white people.

Taking values from the US Census (White = 62.9%, African American = 18.9%, call it 3:1), Change 3:1 opportunities down to 3:2 for the crime rate (simplified a bit), and the lack of any white victims still means he’s inordinately inflicting violence against the minority population of African Americans.

“Lastly, according to the FBI U.S Department of Justice, African Americans committed 51.1 percent of murders.”

Highlighting this as a fine example of pro’s racist Red Herrings [3] Gish Gallops [2]. The only connection I can draw to this debate is that pro believes DC’s racism made him paranoid of African Americans, so was trying to kill them first? If true, that only validates DC’s extreme level of racism. Believing racism to be valid and something to be proud of, in no way denies that it is racism.

“This claim even ignores basic logic. Following CON's logic, if a black police officer has killed ONE PERSON, and that person was not of his OWN RACE it shows clear prejudice and antagonism.”

My case actually showed DC’s several violent crimes against African Americans, and his follow up racism against them while on trial; contrasted with his null rate of targeting white people for any of the same. I have not focused on one isolated incident as pro would have you believe.

“CON cries "antagonism" in the most unreasonable ways.”

I have used the word antagonism tying directly to pro’s favored definition for racism. I have used it primarily in reference to violence (including a literal murder). That pro insists it’s unreasonable to say killing someone is in any way antagonism (AKA hostility), speaks volumes.

“CON subjectively locates “race” as the means for discrimination, but his entire case can also be used to “prove” discrimination against height, weight, hair color, and any other physical properties”

Pro argues that DC selected his victims on the basis of being within certain scales; having by chance never encountered any white people with a height between that of George Floyd and Zoya Code (6’4” to ~5’4”), or weights (223 to ~140), or brown hair… It’s really sounding like the other physical properties pro is pointing to happens to be brown skin and being descended from Africa.

George Floyd

Even after my previous correction, pro is continuing to spread blatant disinformation. The length of the murder is well known to be 9 minutes 29 seconds [7]; not the various random numbers pro and his sources are claiming. Even Fox News agrees that it was 9 minutes 29 seconds [8].

In this section pro launches into some truly bizarre rants. First he claims I’m lying about George Floyd and Alexander Kueng being present at George Floyd’s murder advising DC that human beings (yes, even African Americans) need to breath to live. Nitpicking about Kueng was 26 at the time [9] even though enough cherry picking of sources one indicates he was 27 (as if that would be material… Again; desperate red herrings). And best of all, he invents some conspiracy theory that George Floyd is actually a still living white guy named Dr. Martin Tobin; to try to declare that I’ve lied about George Floyd being African American…

My video source gave no doubt as to who I was calling experts. George Floyd at 94 seconds [10], and Alexander Kueng at 286 seconds [11]. Dr. Martin Tobin does not appear within said video to lead to any sane person being confused by him existing. That another (even a better) breathing expert exists, does not deny the many years of experience possessed by George Floyd and Alexander Kueng. Whereas DC has repeatedly operated under the impression African Americans breath best when being suffocated, a self-evidently racist mistake which has landed him in prison.

I’ll also add that pro’s source on Dr. Martin Tobin, self refutes all of pro’s off topic claims on drug abuse playing into the death [12]:

The doctor also dispelled one of the defense’s main arguments: that Floyd died because of a drug overdose or his preexisting heart condition, instead of the officers’ use of force on him. With fentanyl, his respiratory rate would have decreased, and with heart disease, it would have increased. Neither was the case.

“This is a crime in which one would physically be arrested.”

Pro is welcome to show DC using excessive force (even non-lethally) against any white person who committed the same crime, or even any other crime. He will not, because DC’s violent outbursts are prejudiced along racial lines. He is unlikely to even show such an arrest without excessive force, due to DC’s overwhelming racial prejudice.

“CON also says the crime was a misdemeanor, but according to the Law Office of Brett H. Pritchard”

“Texas.” The state pro is talking about is Texas. The state George Floyd was murdered in was Minnesota [13]. And even in Texas, the penalty for maybe using a counterfeit $20 is not summary execution.

DC’s continued the pattern of racism against African Americans throughout his defense, by using a series of badly cliché racist excuses

Pro tries to defend that a pattern of racist words doesn’t make someone a racist. Yet looking at the frameworks from R1, we are in agreement that is the easiest way to identify a racist (so long as it’s more than one isolated racist statement).

I kept it brief in respect for everyone’s time. Building it out: DC decided to use racist arguments in his defense which are “rooted in centuries of looking at the health and well-being of Black people as different — and less valuable — than that of white people” as explained by Denise Herd PhD [14]. She is literally a doctor of behavioral science, with almost 40 years experience, and director of her department at Berkeley [15]; ergo a respected source of authority on this topic. Pro of course insists expertise isn’t expertise if it’s from an African American (this is the third one so far in this debate).

Additional reminder: Pro’s Vice article has self refuted most of his paragraphs here [12].

“So this fails to indicate any racial motivation or bias.”

The attacks, tortures, and even a murder following racial lines of one group and excluding the other, is self evidently a racial bias.

Zoya Code

Pro’s case is dependent on how DC would do exactly the same to any white woman. Case in point, even with three times as many white women to choose from, he has not. Pro is welcome to find any similar case that shows DC torturing a white woman for not resisting, then we might have some sign to question if he might not be racist. As is, there is zero reason to doubt the clear racial connection to his actions.

What we have is Zoya Code took a weapon away from a violent person, for which DC attacked her, then tortured her for the fun of it when she didn’t fight back, and finally attested her (FYI, the charges didn’t stick) [16]. That she initially pulled away when DC lunged at her, is an instinctive reaction anyone is likely to do when confronted with someone twice their size doing that. It in no way justifies taking her outside and torturing her. To verify it was torture: he tried to suffocate her in a maneuver proven to be lethal, while having her pinned on the ground and handcuffed he leaned in more to inflict pain for the joy of it, added extra extra cuffs to her feet to humiliate her; all while she offered no resistance after the the initial moment of pulling away. All of this was caught on camera, and presented at his trial.

“police officers don't do this”

Pro has apparently never heard of Derek Chauvin, a police officer arrested and convicted of murdering an African American [13], in spite pro’s protests that police officers would never do such a thing.

Sources:

As was proven above, pro did read his own sources before spamming them in an effort to waste everyone's time. Additionally, his assessment of my sources was deeply non sequitur, to include some weird conspiracy about me lying about George Floyd being African American…

Several of these are repeats from last round, or pro’s own source which needed to be referenced for directly contradicting his case.

Round 3

05.06.2022 06:53AM

Pro

FRAMEWORK

What are we debating? It needs to be asked.
Put most simply, we are debating what is resolved: Derek Chauvin is not a racist.
First of all, I extend all my arguments. CON drops/concedes the argument from the conclusion/admission of the PROSECUTION team of the George Floyd case, a trial which he sources multiple times.

Thus far CON has shown that Derek Chauvin has been violent with multiple people of many different races, but he fails to show what he himself claimed he would: as a causal factor that proves that Chavin is targetting people BECAUSE of their race.
CON says he used my sources against me but this is all entirely false and we shouldn't take much of these wild grasps very seriously anymore at this point. For example, my opponent says my legal source that showed using counterfeited money is a federal felony only applies to Texas...showing a lack of understanding of what "federal" means.
He also thinks that because I showed a source with a person that has a different medical perspective than other medical experts who testified, it means I have "self-refuted" (all people must think the same things presumably?). I will demonstrate all this in my closing arguments and rebuttals.
Now, for some framework closing:

CON: DC being racist is well documented common knowledge, going all the way up to the president of the United States calling him out on it [4].

Totally irrelevant. For one even looking at this source Biden does not mention anywhere that Derek Chauvin is a racist, so we can almost discard this in its entirety.
Biden seems to be making a point that racism exists in POLICING, but as we have shown and CON has conceded policemen are more hesitant to shoot black people so the point appears to be moot.

DEFINITIONS

CON whines about me using a different dictionary (CAMBRIDGE) that has a better applicable definition of "targeted" but in doing so, he simply uses the genetic fallacy [10]. He simply cries on about me daring to use a dictionary with a better contextual definition and provides NO PREFERRED definition and says NOTHING about if (or why) he believes it is a bad definition. Because of this, he is simply complaining about its origin thus using the genetic fallacy.
We will get to CON lying about federal vs state law in my later rebuttals.

BOP

CON: "Pro is disagreeing with his own source in trying to flip the BoP when his source actually says it’s his duty to affirm his resolution"

CON says I am disagreeing with my source, however, his point is very wrong as I have already affirmed the resolution quite strongly.
The fact of the matter is that we make claims based on evidence.
My argument is simple, there is no evidence that Derek Chauvin is a racist (ie he targets people based on race) therefore he is not a racist.
CON himself has dropped/conceded my argument that even Minnesota's black ATTORNEY GENERAL, Keith Ellington who was appointed and LED the prosecution of Chauvin [3] ADMITTED this.

When interviewer Scott Pelley asked Ellison whether the murder was a hate crime, the prosecutor replied: "I wouldn't call it that because hate crimes are crimes where there's an explicit motive and of bias. We don't have any evidence that Derek Chauvin factored in George Floyd's race as he did what he did" [5].

Now think about what this means. This is the head of an entire prosecution team of qualified lawyers who had access to the entirety of records including bodycam footage, police records, officer file records, social media records, expert testimony, and state resources could find NO EVIDENCE that establishes race as a causal factor in Derek Chauvin's actions. CON drops this argument thus conceding it.
CON has emphasized his veneration for the seemingly infallible arbitration of African American authorities, he even makes silly ad hominem attacks implying I am a racist simply because I pointed out he lied about a white doctor being black.
It appears in continuing to argue that Chauvin was racially motivated when the African American HEAD PROSECUTOR of the entire BASIS TRIAL of his argument has stated this is not true, CON contradicts his entire narrative.

OBJECTION contradicion!

CON has said two things that cannot be true at the same time!

CON himself said in ROUND 1: "I feel it’s safe to assume a legal standard" concerning BOP of Chavin being a racist.
Yet when rebutted with the fundamental principle of the legal system—INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY—(which in this case could be proven to be a racist) he drops his entire framework and implies as if he was ever talking about being convicted of a crime in a real courtroom.
CON completely contradicts himself here and must clarify whether he wants to apply a legal standard or not, or what that even means to him.
As a reminder; all legal evidence that EXISTS is directly against CON's argument as stated directly above. The head prosecutor of the case CON appeals to said himself that from all the mountains of data and records that exist "We don't have any evidence that Derek Chauvin factored in George Floyd's race as he did what he did."

CON'S CASE "DISTILLED"

CON states his case into a syllogism as if doing so changes the fact that my opponent has failed to establish race as a causal factor in any of the two incidents described. It appears that resisting arrest seems to be a common causal factor, however. CON says:

P1: If somehow shows a pattern of prejudice or hatred against a certain race, they are racist.

P2: DC has shown such a pattern against African Americans.

C1: Therefore, DC is racist.

For one, the syllogism is unsound. Premise two is false as CON has not shown or provided any evidence that Chauvin has any hatred or prejudice against African Americans.
Premise two can apply to any physical feature such as height, age, eye color, or hair color. CON has shown no causal factor that makes race a reason, so we should reject his dogmatism.
CON is able to showcase two examples of George Floyd's keeling of African Americans but both cases involve incidents of resisting arrest. While that may not justify some of his actions, simply being a bad police officer does not make you a racist.
There are many bad police officers of all races such as black police officer Mohamed Noor who was also in Minneapolis like Chauvin where he shot and killed an INNOCENT white woman and was arrested and convicted of murder as Chauvin was [6]. Is he a racist, no. Is he a bad police officer, yes.

AN ISSUE WITH CON'S REBUTTAL CASE: "GISH GALLOP"

My opponent accuses me of gis galloping. Now to be clear this is a 3-day period for argument, 30,000 character debate. There is a lot to assert and address, however, I have responded to CON's points in uniform sections and I have directly sourced every claim I make mostly including direct quotes so his accusation fails.
Ironically moreover, it is actually CON who is gish galloping; he has done so since the first round.
As Wikipedia states: "During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in a short space of time," and CON simply has lied multiple times about his sources.
I even called out how CON lies about his sources in round two and in response he lies more about them and tries to cover up his lies with more lies/strawmen that we can also uncover.
This is by DEFINITION gish galloping: making a series of claims that are blatantly false in a way that takes longer to uncover and debunk.
We must therefore conclude CON's accusation is more of a self-projection than an actual statement. This leads us to my next section.

*Note that because of CON gish galloping it takes more time to unravel and refute his many false claims.

CON LYING ABOUT SOURCES

I want to establish this foremostly. I accused CON of lying about his sources in round two. CON has had the opportunity to admit this and honestly, I would have been charitable if he said he made a mistake. Instead, he lies even more about what I said and arrogantly insists he is correct obfuscating around very specific points.
Let's agree that at this point there is no longer any excuse. I will simply reiterate CON's source malpractice in a breakdown of sections and show how he lied even more.
I will divide his misrepresentations into 3 sections: Strawman I, II, and III

STRAWMAN I: "And best of all, he invents some conspiracy theory that George Floyd is actually a still living white guy named Dr. Martin Tobin; to try to declare that I’ve lied about George Floyd being African American…"

This one was amusing but even the voters can see how obvious of a strawman this is. I didn't claim GEORGE FLOYD is a white person at all. Don't worry we can reiterate:
In round, CON claimed, "DC was told 27 separate times by a breathing expert with 46 years experience, that the victim could not breath[e]."

This is a lie as I showed, it was George Floyd himself who said he could not breathe 27 times. CON did not deny this thus dropping/conceding it. No breathing expert was present during the arrest of George Floyd.
The breathing expert with 46 years of experience CON refers to is a man named Dr. Micheal Tonbin. He is a WHITE man who testified in court while CON insists he is a BLACK man that was on the scene of the arrest! Even as Vice reports: "a medical expert who has studied the human respiratory system for over 46 years just testified..." "Dr. Martin Tobin, a pulmonologist, or an expert in breathing, said during Derek Chauvin’s murder trial Thursday" [2].
Ironically while CON tries to lie out of addressing his previous lies, it is HIM who asserts a conspiracy theory.
To put it frankly, CON is arguing that a white man—who he thinks is secretly a black man—was present at the George Floyd arrest—even though he isn't a police officer—and said exactly what Floyd said himself—even though CON also thinks he was doing the arresting. Apparently, he is both the criminal, the police, and a breathing expert.

STRAWMAN II: "First he claims I’m lying about George Floyd and Alexander Kueng being present at George Floyd’s murder advising DC that human beings (yes, even African Americans) need to breath to live"

Nope, such a silly strawman could only make one marvel. Both were present however no BREATHING EXPERT was PRESENT!
Alexander Keung is an African American police officer arrested like Derek Chauvin for his involvement in the death of Floyd. CON lied that he was a breathing expert!

STRAWMAN III: "Nitpicking about Kueng was 26 at the time [9] even though enough cherry-picking of sources one indicates he was 27 (as if that would be material… Again; desperate red herrings)"

As a more pathetic of a grasp as it seems, CON tries to make it seem like he said simply Alexander Keung was 26 years old and not that he was a breathing expert with 26 years of experience.
However, in contradicting himself, CON forgets we can all see that he said clearly in round one that Alexander Keung was "Another breathing expert with 26 years experience."
CON CONCEDES that he was only 27 at the time as I showed so following CON's lies, did he become a "breathing expert" when he was one year old?
But voters, if you want even FURTHER evidence of CON's cretinous lies, we have established that CON lies about Alexander Keung being a breathing expert for 26 years, but according to court testimony INSIDER reports on "had been less than 4 days into the job" as a POLICE OFFICER. So even as an officer, he had UNDER A WEEEK of total experience [4].
Now we have established that CON has been lying with no possible doubt or objection. And this being said, it's questionable if we can trust CON's case if he lies in this manner to convey his narrative.

REFUTING CON'S REBUTTALS

Given that the murder victim was accused (not convicted) of a non-violent crime, this is purely a Red Herring [3].

The violent crime statistic was to address my opponent's example of Zoya Code who as his own source alleges, tried to choke her mother with an extension cord. So the source is not a red herring in any way as Chauvin was legitimately responding to a violent crime report.
I specifically addressed the crime George Floyd committed in ROUND 2.
Let's agree that Geroge Floyd was arrested for using counterfeit money. As I stated in round one According to the United States Sentencing Commission, black people account for 38.1% of counterfeiting offenses [12] despite only being 13% of the population. Therefore black people commit these offenses at significantly higher rates than white people. CON dropped this point in ROUND 2, therefore, conceding it.
Black people are significantly more likely to commit the offense George Floyd was arrested for. CON's point is irrelevant.

CON concedes his use of the general population rate as a metric for determining the demographics of Chauvin's victims.
However, CON's argument suffers from the same caveats brought up in ROUND ONE and is therefore invalidated.
For one it necessitates that there must be victims in sort of racial quotas which is ignorant to the experiences of policemen. We ultimately can't come up with a ratio in this regard that accounts for location, circumstances, suspicion, resistance, aggression, etc. All of these factors contribute to police actions.

CON "The only connection I can draw to this [MURDER STATISTICS OF BLACK AMERICANS] debate is that pro believes DC’s racism made him paranoid of African Americans, so was trying to kill them first? If true, that only validates DC’s extreme level of racism. Believing racism to be valid and something to be proud of, in no way denies that it is racism"

My opponent's obvious misrepresentation here becomes almost laughable. But regardless, the murder statistics further indicate a statistical fact that black people commit crimes at significantly higher rates than other groups, so it would make sense that they would have more police interactions and more unfortunate potential killings.

OBJECTION contradiciton/moving the goalposts!
CON clearly stated in round one that a person must kill people in equivalent proportions to the general population demographics.

CON "DC has a history of inflicting violence against minorities, especially African Americans. He does this in a disproportionate manner showing clear prejudice and antagonism. Were he an equal opportunity offender, for every 1 African American person he murdered, there should have likewise been 3 white victims"

Following CON's logic, if a black officer kills ONE white person and NO black people like African American Police Officer Mohamed Noor did, he is racially prejudiced and antagonistic.
CON contradicts himself by special pleading: deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to his point of view. The logic applies to Chauvin alone and no one else apparently.

Once again strawman fallacy.
The reason I claimed my opponent cries about antagonism in severely unreasonable ways is that he insists that any police officer who has killed a person and has not killed other races in proportion to the general population is racially prejudiced and antagonistic.
Following this logic, the heroic policeman that shot and killed Mhakia Bryant to SAVE another black woman's life who Bryant was about to impale with a knife [7] is simply racially prejudiced and antagonistic because he didn't kill other white people hence CON's argument is extremely anti-intellectual.

My argument was pretty simple actually. There is actually no logical reason that CON has established race as the basis of discrimination in his narrative. By nature of truism, it could be any height, weight, eye color, or age.
Now of course Chauvin has encountered many white people on who he has used excessive force such as Melissa Borton but as long as CON does not establish a CAUSAL relationship showing Chauvin targets people BECAUSE they are black, his argument is meaningless and can apply to any of these factors.

GEORGE FLOYD (REBUTTALS)

We have already addressed and established beyond a reasonable doubt that CON lying about his sources. It's safe to assume that a lot more of his case contains many lies and other deceptions.

Pro is welcome to show DC using excessive force (even non-lethally) against any white person who committed the same crime, or even any other crime. He will not, because DC’s violent outbursts are prejudiced along racial lines. He is unlikely to even show such an arrest without excessive force, due to DC’s overwhelming racial prejudice.

Sure, Melissa Borton is a white woman who Derek Chauvin used excessive force against. In August 2007 she was randomly and indiscriminately dragged out of her car by Chauvin in front of her crying child and with no explanation given, who without a word forced her into the back of his police car for (later revealed) reasons of having a suspected vehicle.
She was innocent and released 15 minutes later after which she promptly filed a complaint to the Minneapolis Police Department [8].
Ultimately, Chauvin is simply a reckless police officer but to claim he has racial evidence is clearly incorrect. Again, CON has not proven this in any way.
Also, while Chauvin used excessive force notice he did not place her on the ground? Why? Because she didn't RESIST arrest. We are beginning to see a pattern here. Chauvin has a habit of using excess force, but he tends to assert more force when situations are escalated due to people initially resisting.

“Texas.” The state pro is talking about is Texas. The state George Floyd was murdered in was Minnesota [13]. And even in Texas, the penalty for maybe using a counterfeit $20 is not summary execution."

However, in lying about what my source said CON displays a lack of understanding of the English language and his amusing openly willful ignorance of the law.
My source (Brett H. Prichard) one of the most prominent legal offices in the United States says under the section titled "Can I Face Federal Charges for Using Counterfeit Money?"

"Yes, using counterfeit money is a felony under federal law punishable by up to 20 years in prison in addition to hefty fines. You could be sentenced to two decades in prison regardless of whether you" [1].

CON may not know or understand this but Federal means relating to or denoting the central government of the US. This is the law of the US government, not any state.
Now, the infamous law office of Brett H Prichard is LOCATED in Texas and that may be why CON made such a poorly researched point, but that doesn't change the fact that they discussed the federal law in the source. As they say "Using counterfeit money is a crime under federal and state law" [1].

DC’s continued the pattern of racism against African Americans throughout his defense, by using a series of badly cliché racist excuses Pro tries to defend that a pattern of racist words doesn’t make someone a racist. Yet looking at the frameworks from R1, we are in agreement that is the easiest way to identify a racist (so long as it’s more than one isolated racist statement).

CON fails to argue against my rebuttal to his claim that I concluded to be "facts are racist."
As I argued in ROUND 2: at the time of his arrested "Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system" [18]. In his testimony, Dr. Andrew Baker, Hennepin County Medical Examiner says that "If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3" [18], a point CON drops.
My argument is simple.

Did Floyd have a dosage of Fentanyl that expert medical examiners say would be a succinct cause of OD death? Yes.
Did George Floyd have heart disease? Yes.
Has the testimony of extremely qualified medical examiners such as Dr. David Fowler show that these factors played a role in his death? Yes.

These are simply facts that are relevant to this case and trial.
CON's argument simply put is that facts are racist and this reasoning is anti-intellectual and surprisingly ignorant. It undermines the process of evaluating evidence itself. As CON drops, these are objectively determined judgments and therefore they are not racist.
Chauvin's defense is not built on racial stereotypes. It is based on objective relevant facts pertaining to a murder trial.

CON says PRO’s Vice article has self refuted most of his paragraphs here

How does that self refute anything? Different medical experts can come to different conclusions based on their methodologies and how they examine relevant facts. That does not change that expert medical testimony from Dr. David Fowler and others believe drugs and personal health played a more significant role.

"Dr. David Fowler, a former chief medical examiner for the state of Maryland and now a member of a consulting firm, said the fentanyl and methamphetamine in Floyd’s system, and possible carbon monoxide poisoning from auto exhaust, were contributing factors in the 46-year-old Black man’s death last May" [9].

We can never say with 100% certainty what was the ultimate cause of Floyd's death and ultimately trials are about convincing a jury with evidence and evaluation, but Floyd's health conditions and substance abuse remain relevant facts to the case.

ZOYA CODE

I argued in round one using CON's own source to show that Zoya Code attempted to RESIST arrest. CON does not dispute this thus dropping the point.
CON once again appeals to his poor and ignorantly crafted round 1 argument that police officers should respond to situations in direct proportion to the general population demographics, an argument I have thoroughly rebuked and refuted.
Once again the general population has nothing to do with the criminal population, nor does it have anything to do with the experiences of police officers who generally respond to situations in manners contingent on people either resisting arrest, acting suspicious, acting aggressively, etc.
Just like George Floyd because Code resisted we can conclude that Derek Chavin responds aggressively when people RESIST arrest. Many officers do, perhaps in ways not as extreme, but there is absolutely no evidence he does so because they are black. That is a non-sequitur or a conclusion that does not follow from its premises.
As long as CON does now show that Floyd did this because Zoya was BLACK, he has proven nothing and his argument can simply be discrimination based on her weight, height, eye color, hair length, or ANY physical feature.

OTHER REBUTTALS

CON: Pro has apparently never heard of Derek Chauvin, a police officer arrested and convicted of murdering an African American [13], in spite pro’s protests that police officers would never do such a thing.

For better context, I argued that the fact that policemen are more hesitant to shoot/kill black people "It implies if anything that Chauvin would not deliberately seek out victims of any race, and we can't assume this without evidence because police officers simply don't tend to do this as the data shows.
Because we have evidence that police officers are more hesitant to shoot/kill black people we know that once again, we cannot expect any racial motivations or actions of racially targeted violence"
My opponent has failed to prove that Derek Chauvin has any racial bias on any point of this debate.

CON'S SOURCES

It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that CON lied about his video source, therefore in considering sources, CON's own reference has been used against him and it invalidates a significant part of his argument if we AGREE that lying about sources is a severe conduct violation.

CON: "As was proven above, pro did read his own sources before spamming them in an effort to waste everyone's time"

Frankly, the opposite has been made clear. CON not only lied about his sources, but he lied about what I said to cover up that he lied about his sources. Logically speaking this was an effort to do nothing but waste our voter's time and insult their intelligence. It was nothing but a gish gallop or a synthesis of blatant lies and misinformation in a way that takes longer to address.
We can conclude that all my sources were synthesized effectively while CONs have been used against him.

CONCLUSION

Admittedly I was not expecting what can be described as a childishly perfidious round from my opponent, but several lies and strawman arguments later, I think it only made his case worse off than it already was.
In conclusion, the prosecution of Floyds trial has proven him wrong. The head of the team, African American Keith Maurice Ellison, stated with ALL RECORDS and potential EVIDENCE they had at their disposal that "We don't have any evidence that Derek Chauvin factored in George Floyd's race as he did what he did."
As long as CON has not shown us a casual link establishing that Chauvin specifically seeks and targets people because they are BLACK his argument is simply moot. It could apply to any other physical feature like weight, hair, or eye color.
CON asked for examples of Chauvin using excessive force against white people and I provided such quite easily.
Ultimately Chauvin is a bad police officer, sure. He may have been in the wrong in many cases, sure. But he is not a racist and there is no tangible evidence of this.
As long as you agree that we make claims based on evidence, a vote for PRO is necessary.

Thank you to all voters for your time, and please Vote PRO!

SOURCES

05.08.2022 12:49AM

Con

While pro used 28,193 characters for his closing comments, I shall strive to be concise.

To such ends, it took pro three rounds to offer a single piece of evidence that Derek Chauvin (DC) is not racist. Said evidence is his comparative treatment of Melissa Borton, the only known case of him having even a disagreeable encounter with a white person. To this pro claims “excessive force,” which his sources disagree, noting: “Borton is grateful to have not been physically harmed” and further was not cuffed, choked, tortured, nor even arrested; in short no excessive force used [1]. Compared to what he inflicted to several African American people (Zoya Code for an apples-to-apples comparison between women), the difference in treatment by racial lines is a stark contrast.

If anyone does not believe that hunting down people to torture and murder on the basis of their skin color is racism (pro’s defense repeatedly claimed that DC was selecting his victims by physical traits), I further have the backup up that DC built his failed defense upon racism (with expert testimony to confirm it), which directly ties to the R1 agreements on what it would take for someone to be a racist (see racist comedian example).

1,284 characters. The rest may be skipped if my previous material was read.

Don’t Believe His Lies:

Pro’s case is dependent on his belief that the voters here are incredibly gullible with a goldfish like memory. That my case can be fact checked to not contain what he claims it contains, is truly self-evident. Like Leonard Shelby in the classic film Memento, don’t believe his lies [2].

Three key examples are as follows:

George Floyd never died and is actually some random white guy who testified against DC… Pro claims it, builds his case around people believing it, but never tries to support it. An extension of the basic Gish Gallop, but worse, it crosses the line into being a rare example of argumentum ex culo [3].
He claims I conceded 8 separate times, and yet excepting for this line here, I have not written that word nor any variant thereof. This can be verified with CTRL+F.
The closest I came is dismissing if Alexander Kueng had one additional year of experience as not material (I did not even drop this, instead I showed a common informational source specifying his age at the time of the murder to match my original statement).
African Americans aren’t a racial group.

My Case Distilled:

Pro claims hunting down, torturing, and even murdering people based on the physical trait of their skin color is in no way a pattern of prejudice; this is obviously non sequitur.

My syllogism stands, and pro has no counter claim to show any standard by which DC would be measured as not racist.

Framework:

Pro is trying to move the goalposts to the resolution of DC being explicitly convicted for hate crimes and offers no defense to the absurdity that his standard would declare Hitler himself innocent of being a racist. The resolution is just about if DC is or is not a racist, as can be verified by looking up at the title.

As for pro’s repeated mention of causality: Scroll up to his R1 framework, in which you’ll find him and I in agreement:

“there must be a defined pattern of racism that clearly shows the individual has a prejudice.”

That pro without any warrant asserts a clear as day pattern isn’t any pattern at all, doesn’t make it so. We don’t need to know why Hitler hated Jewish people; to declare him a racist all we need is a “defined pattern” of prejudice against them committed by him. Same with DC against the African Americans whom he hunted down, tortured, suffocated, and in one case outright murdered.

Burden of Proof (BoP)

Pro denied the existence of my Hitler comparison reply to his quote from the attorney general, and then six paragraphs later started objecting to it… Objecting to the thing he claims doesn’t exist… I hope pro is getting enough oxygen, unlike DC’s various African American victims.

As for his claimed contradiction in legal standards of BoP: No contradiction. I can expect him to aim for a legal standard of proof to his case (basically, bring strong evidence instead of empty assertions), even while not demanding he pass the bar exam before presenting a case. If anyone decides BoP is the opposite of my assessment, then please weigh what (if any) reasonable counter motive pro has introduced to explain DC’s actions as not showing a pattern of prejudice against African Americans.

Gish Galloping

Pro counters with an obvious Tu Quoque fallacy [4], claiming that anyone not agreeing with him is the real Gish Galloper. If in doubt count the paragraphs, to which his replies have consistently more than doubled what they’re responding to, while after R1 I’ve used significantly less than him (my R1 was 52, he replies with 116; I trim it back to 78, and he expands to 155).

Solidifying that pro is pro is Gish Galloping, he even does the classic Gish Gallop tactic of claiming that if I did not respond to any one of his hundreds of paragraphs, then he wins. This isn’t how logical debate works. His job is to prove that DC isn’t racist, as per the resolution. Were the resolution that I did not respond to each and every line of his Gish Gallop (not that there exists space to do so), then he would win.

“I didn't claim GEORGE FLOYD is a white person at all.”

And yet, pro did exactly that. When I used George Floyd’s superior expertise offered to DC in an attempt to prevent a murder (with a source showing George Floyd doing just that), pro insisted:

“The medical expert of 46 years CON refers to was NOT present during the shooting. His name is Dr. Martin Tobin and he expert witness who testified in COURT [15] He is also a WHITE MAN, CON lied about him being African American.” [sic]

Not even getting into pro’s continued disinformation, going so far as even trying to claim that DC shot instead of suffocated George Floyd… That pro is insisting George Floyd was secretly a white doctor who was not even present, is clear. To dispel any potentially confusion, I offered a timestamped link to my original source, but pro is doubling down on his conspiracy theory (while simultaneously denying it occurred) insisting I somehow

“lied about a white doctor being black.”

Alexander Kueng

Compared to DC, Alexander Kueng is also a breathing expert. I stand by this. If he had an extra year of experience on which to be an expert, doesn’t deny that. As for his limited time as a cop; it doesn’t factor into the knowledge pool of the decades of breathing while African American he was drawing from to offer expert advice.

DC’s belief that African Americans breath best while suffocated (George Floyd, Zoya Code, and others), has been proven patently incorrect by his murder conviction (maybe that’s why pro is trying to claim DC shot George Floyd?). George Floyd and Alexander Kueng both offered superior expertise on the matter to DC, which had he listened would have saved him from a murder conviction.

It’s neat that pro and DC believe someone can only be an expert if white (with DC intentionally doing the opposite of what African Americans suggest), but this is ultimately one more piece of proof that DC is a racist.

A History of Targeted Racial Violence

Pro insists “We ultimately can't come up with a ratio…” This is only true if we haven’t practiced basic math. As I know 2+2=4 and other basic formulae, this isn’t difficult.

I already calculated the relevant ratio using US Census data for the local area, cross referenced with pro’s own crime data. >3:2 white vs African Americans. For every 2 cases (there were more) of DC getting caught using excessive force against African Americans, there should have been 3 cases of him doing likewise to white people. The closest he ever came was being rude to Melissa Borton for 15 minutes before letting her go unharmed; whereas when dealing with African Americans, he suffocates them (in one documented case, for 9 minutes 29 seconds; while not quite that 15 minutes of being rude, the increased degree of antagonism and harm more than outweighs it).

Granted, my calculations are using data which has been intentionally manipulated against African Americans by DC and other racists (another point pro dropped). As seen with Melissa Borton, when the suspect is white he doesn’t arrest them. Whereas for African Americans even when there’s no way the charges would stick, he arrests them (Zoya Code, arrested and literally tortured for taking a weapon away from a violent person… And CTRL+F can verify that pro dropped DC’s choice to torture African Americans if they don’t fight back). The cumulative result is African Americans being arrested for violent crimes at the increased rate we are forced to use for this calculation, with the real number of comparative offenses obviously lower; but the flawed numbers taken at face value are effective for showing the massive disparity in treatment from DC. That the real disparity is far worse, doesn’t invalidate that there’s a staggering disparity.

“OBJECTION contradiciton/moving the goalposts!” [sic]

Here pro claims that showing DC targeted multiple African Americans with violence, is proof that he is not a racist, and somehow moving the goalposts away from race… In case it isn’t obvious, African Americans are a racial group. They’re not zombies which need to put put down before they spread, as white supremacists would have you believe [5, 6].

And yet again, my logic is not that any single isolated incident defines someone. To borrow from pro’s own opening framework, it is when they show a “defined pattern” that we can determine if they’re racist or not. Unlike Mohamed Noor whom pro keeps dragging out, who had only a single known bad altercation with anyone.

“his argument is meaningless and can apply to any of these factors.”

This was in response to me catching that “It’s really sounding like the other physical properties pro is pointing to happens to be brown skin and being descended from Africa.” Pro is not denying that the most reasonable interpretation of his logic is that DC targeted African Americans for looking like they’re descended from Africa (AKA, their racial identity).

“We can never say with 100% certainty what was the ultimate cause of Floyd's death”

Actually, we can: Murdered by Derek Chauvin.

Pro can try to confuse it all he wants with such claims as DC also shot George Floyd while suffocating him, or George Floyd was never there but was secretly some random white doctor, and use all the contradictory sources with African Americans being immune to suffocation and bullets, but by now everyone watched DC commit the murder and intentionally impede the efforts of paramedics [7].

Sources:

06.15.2022 05:21PM

#58

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Congrats on the new job, and good luck with the family.

ADreamOfLiberty

06.13.2022 10:15PM

#57

-->

@Barney

@Novice

I'm very sorry that I in fact did not analyze or vote on the debate as I implied I would. The last three weeks have flown by as I started a new job and have a lot of family staying in my house.

Novice_II

06.07.2022 10:01AM

#56

Okay, so, if one is aware of the feeling of having read something so foolish/idiotic, but is meant to be serious, that is close to my current line of thoughts in respect to the comments section of this debate.

06.07.2022 06:56AM

#55

Now that the voting period has ended, I can freely discuss any aspect of this debate without fear of creating undue bias in voters.

So, anyone have any questions?

06.07.2022 06:46AM

#54

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

I was tempted to argue just that; that he's racist for being a cop, and pro effectively conceded all cops are racist against white people with their increased willingness to shoot them. So many angles I could have taken.

PREZ-HILTON

06.06.2022 12:08AM

#53

"“Policemen are more hesitant to shoot black people”
If we assume this applies outside of firearms, this only compounds that DC was racist due to him committing crimes toward African Americans when other cops would apparently be more hesitant and/or opt to select white victims instead."

This should be reworded to say

"Chauvin is racist for being equally resistant to attacking two different ethnicities, while other cops are quicker to shoot one ethnicity over the other, which somehow makes them not racist"

06.05.2022 08:34PM

#52

-->

@Greyparrot

@Mharman

The debate indeed touched on those issues.

Greyparrot

06.05.2022 11:21AM

#51

I think the way the debate proposition was worded made it easy. It seems all con had to do was present reasonable doubt that DC was not a racist. It would have been a lot harder to prove DC was a racist than to simply prove he might have been a racist. This is probably why he was not criminally charged for being a racist.

Mharman

06.02.2022 09:46AM

#50

I’ve wondered about this. Obviously Derek Chauvin deserved to be tossed in jail, but given that we can’t see inside the heart, we don’t really know his true motivation.

So I guess this debate is based on likelihood. Con needs has multiple ways to prove this, but Pro potentially can have some good counter-evidence. I might vote on this.

ComputerNerd

06.01.2022 07:00AM

#49

-->

@Barney

I definitely feel like Novice's confidence made him a little overconfident in his own statements.

He did make some good points, but you stayed pretty calm and logical in my opinion. So, good job!

06.01.2022 06:22AM

#48

-->

@ComputerNerd

Any feedback on this debate?

05.26.2022 07:36AM

#47

Michelle Obama commented on George Floyd today:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cd_nxPQODL6/

05.20.2022 10:02PM

#46

-->

@Bones

Especially as I suspect you disagree with my conclusions and me being well out of practice on debating, would you mind sharing any feedback on this debate?

05.17.2022 07:39PM

#45

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

I had forgotten about forum posts doing it. Thanks in advance, and take your time.

ADreamOfLiberty

05.17.2022 05:51PM

#44

-->

@Barney

I have unlocked voting, but I haven't managed to get the couple hours + tea required to analyze this debate yet sorry. I still have 20 days right?

05.16.2022 05:32PM

#43

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

While I know you haven't unlocked voting privileges yet, you mentioned you were following this one... So, would you mind sharing your opinions on how the debate turned out?

whiteflame

05.13.2022 02:19PM

#42

-->

@Barney

@Novice

Appreciate the response, Barney.

I also appreciate your clarification, Novice, though I'm not sure who the latter is directed at, specifically. Wasn't the clarification I was hoping for after you attacked my vote for ignoring arguments or bias, but it doesn't appear that you're willing to clarify what you see as problematic in my vote after disparaging it. Oh well.

Would love to see some more votes on this.

05.13.2022 06:07AM

#41

Just as a gesture of clarification of any (obvious) ignorance on specific fallacies, which I imagine would have some benefit, it is good to maintain that simply responding to an argument in a nuanced is not gish galloping, or is using slightly more sources, most especially in an organized format.

05.13.2022 05:09AM

#40

-->

@whiteflame

@SirAnonymous

Now that the voting momentum for this debate seems to be gone...

...

Regarding BoP:
Sorry I let that section get out of control. My intention was to demonstrate to pro how it can be argued. I didn't overly care, as I would hit any reasonable standard of BoP quite easily.

When I vote on debates, BoP sections only merit a quick skim unless the contest is particularly close.

IMO both pro and con will always have some share of BoP. The major difference being that con gets the benefit of doubt.

...

Regarding conduct:
Once R2 started, I knew I would get conduct if I kept my side clean. However, entertaining potential readers takes priority. That said, I do stand by my words on it (with the sole exception of making a big deal out of the "shooting" typo; that was to include the zombie joke).

Calling someone's case racist, to me is warranted when you explain to them if they say certain precises phrases they're a racist, and they proceed to parrot those exact things.

I do not believe the mere act of pro Gish Galloping would cost him conduct; the goal of pointing that out was to undermine him on arguments (especially to pre-refute when a Gish Galloper inevitably proclaims Gish Galloping means they won).

whiteflame

05.10.2022 11:47AM

#39

-->

@Novice

I’m sincerely curious. What arguments do you believe I ignored? The only other points I could find were non-sequiturs about how we should perceive other cops (specifically black cops) if we say that DC is racist for killing one black man, which was both an incorrect portrayal of your opponent’s argument and not particularly relevant to this debate. But please, explain what I missed. I’ll be glad to look over and consider any arguments that you feel I didn’t cover.

05.10.2022 08:32AM

#38

I would even accept the votes if they actually addressed points I made, but it
seems very very close minded for me to do so having read them both.
Feels like more of an attempt to make a certain person win.

Even analyzing certain points of them, don't appear to make sense at all. '
I can't really say anything about anyone's understanding or goals, but what
I can suppose is the unfortunate nature of the situation.

05.10.2022 08:27AM

#37

-->

@ComputerNerd

I understand that you need to capitalize on the opportunity to be passive aggressive to me after two votes have been
cast against me, but honestly speaking, they simply aren't good votes, they both just ignore most of the arguments I make.
I don't really take an active critique with votes any more because it ends up being a waste of time, but if every vote casted
has to simply not address my points, it's impossible to conclude they are fair.

ComputerNerd

05.10.2022 03:39AM

#36

-->

@Novice

Not so cocky now, are you?

05.10.2022 03:19AM

#35

-->

@whiteflame

Thank you for voting, and thank you again for the exceptionally detailed RFD.

05.09.2022 06:24PM

#34

To help ensure full transparency, a forum topic has sprung up related to this debate:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7569-poll-what-is-a-breathing-expert

With the debate still in the voting period, I am personally aiming to keep my commentary minimal.

05.08.2022 09:21PM

#33

Please vote (anyone else), and I ask this time if you do you address the arguments in the debate please

05.08.2022 08:19PM

#32

-->

@Barney

You're welcome.

05.08.2022 08:15PM

#31

-->

@SirAnonymous

It was a cheeky way to say just that. It was a word choice meant to entertain, not to make any real point.

Also, thank you again for voting.

05.08.2022 05:31PM

#30

-->

@Barney

When you said that Floyd and Kueng are breathing experts, did you mean that they are breathing experts because they have spent their entire lives breathing?

I do have a reason for asking this.

05.08.2022 02:56PM

#29

Pro also brings up an interesting case as a refutation. He argues that DC used excessive force against Melissa Borton. He also points out that DC was less cruel to her because she didn’t resist arrest. Con argues that while it is true that he was rude to her, this was the only example of DC using excessive force on a white person, whereas there are several cases of DC using excessive force on black people.

In addition to these arguments, there is much to-do about sources, non-violent and violent crimes, the finer points of law, and other items that have little bearing on whether DC is a racist.

Overall, Con succeeds in establishing a racial disparity in DC’s victims. He succeeds in establishing that DC used excessive force on African-Americans. Pro’s case is very muddled, but he does make a few points. He succeeds in establishing that, in order for DC to be racist, we would need to have evidence that he targets people because of their race. He also succeeds in establishing that DC has used excessive force on at least one white person.

These arguments are difficult to weigh, especially since this debate was packed with plenty of mostly irrelevant matters. However, Con’s points that there was a racial disparity in DC’s victims and that the cases with the most excessive force were against African-Americans is at least some evidence for his case. It’s a bit tenuous and far from conclusive, but Pro does little to counter it. Pro’s argument that Con should have the BOP fell apart in R3 and became exceedingly muddled. Had he won this point, which he could have done with a bit more effort, I would favor Pro on the grounds that Con’s argument does not reach the much-discussed legal standard of proof. However, since Pro failed on the BOP, I favor Con for arguments.

Sources: To be honest, I just don’t feel like analyzing sources after spending about 90 minutes on the arguments, so I’ll be brief. Pro spent a good deal of time unconvincingly accusing Con of lying about sources, but ultimately the sources didn’t have much impact on most of the relevant points.

S&G: Fine on both sides.
Conduct: Pro spent a lot of time accusing Con of lying because Pro failed to grasp Con’s very obvious meaning about the “breathing experts.” Con accused Pro of lying a few times. I’m not sure what to make of Con’s accusations. They seem to miss Pro’s meaning, but that could also be deliberate on Con’s part, since Pro missed Con’s meaning and accused him of lying. Con also made a few veiled accusations of racism that seemed directed toward Pro. There were also accusations of Gish Galloping. If anyone here was Gish Galloping, it was Pro. Pro’s conduct violations were a little more frequent and more egregious than Con’s. Still, I think I’ll let it slide this time.

05.08.2022 02:56PM

#28

Burden of Proof: Pro claims that Con has the BOP. Con says that Pro is the one making a claim and that Pro needs to meet the legal standard by showing that DC is not racist beyond reasonable doubt. Pro points out that the standard is innocent until proven guilty, so Con has the BOP. Con responds that Pro is the one who created the resolution. He points out that Pro’s own source states that the side that affirms the resolution (Pro) has the BOP. Pro responds rather weirdly: “CON says I am disagreeing with my source, however, his point is very wrong as I have already affirmed the resolution quite strongly.” This implicitly agrees with Con. Pro does claim a contradiction between how Con is applying the legal standard for the BOP and for a separate argument in the debate, but it isn’t clear how he is applying this to the BOP. Normally, I would agree with Pro that the person make the positive claim (DC is a racist) as having the BOP. However, this bizarre failure to effectively dispute that standard paired with a statement that seems to implicitly agree with Con overturns that. Thus, I will treat Pro as having the main BOP. In the future, I recommend that, when Pro wishes to argue the negative side, he should create the resolution as a positive (e.g., DC is a racist) and take the Con side. I also recommend that Pro vigorously dispute any attempts to change the burden of proof rather than drop the issue.

Arguments: Pro begins by burning down two strawmen. He states that Con needs to provide evidence that DC as an individual was racist.

Con argues that DC is a racist because he has a history of targeted racial violence. There are multiple fronts to this argument.

1. Con argues that DC’s victims (i.e., the people to whom he showed excessive force, of which there are 6) were disproportionately non-white based off the general population. Pro correctly points out that the metric should be the population of criminals, not the general population. Con argues that DC’s victims are still disproportionately non-white compared to the demographics of the criminal population. Pro says that “CON's argument suffers from the same caveats brought up in ROUND ONE and is therefore invalidated.” I am not at all sure what caveats Pro is referring to or how they apply to Con’s argument. Pro also argues that we can’t come up with a ratio that accounts for factors other than race such as the aggression of the suspect. Pro also brings up the case of Mohamed Noor, who killed a white woman. As Con points out, this case is not analagous. There was only one known incident of Noor using excessive force, but there were multiple incidents for DC. Pro says, “Following CON's logic, if a black police officer has killed ONE PERSON, and that person was not of his OWN RACE it shows clear prejudice and antagonism.” This is transparently false. Con is not arguing based on one incident, but several. Pro also argues that Con has no way of knowing whether DC discriminated based on race rather than height, weight, etc. Con points out that DC’s victims had varying heights and weights. He argues that the common theme is race. Pro argues that this is insufficient. Con, he says, needs to show that DC targeted his victims because they were black, not merely that his victims were black. Con says, “The attacks, tortures, and even a murder following racial lines of one group and excluding the other, is self evidently a racial bias.”

2. Con argues that the fact that DC knelt on George Floyd for 9 minutes and 29 seconds, despite Floyd and fellow officer Alexander Kueng saying that Floyd couldn’t breathe and then had no pulse, is sufficient to demonstrate a pattern of racism. Interestingly, Pro never seemed to address this. Instead, he wasted thousands of characters arguing that Floyd and Kueng are not breathing experts. He seems to have missed Con’s rather obvious meaning that Floyd and Kueng had spent their entire lives breathing and were thus quite qualified to be able to tell when someone is not breathing. Con rather clearly did not say that they had a degree in breathing or that they studied breathing. Pro rather absurdly accuses Con of lying about Floyd and Kueng being breathing experts. Pro also argues that Floyd was resisting arrest and had a history of doing so. How this is an explanation for why a reasonable, non-racist person to kneel on someone’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds is unclear.

3. Con also argues that DC’s torture of Zoya Code indicates racism. Pro again argues that she was resisting arrest. Pro again fails to explain why any reasonable, non-racist person would used this as a reason to continue to use excessive force after she had stopped resisting.

05.08.2022 01:13AM

#27

-->

@zedvictor4

@Intelligence_06

@ADreamOfLiberty

I want to say this, I am not forcing anyone to vote, nor would I attempt too. I am pinging people who seem to be relatively active/are in this comments section.

(If anyone does vote, I do ask for a good reading of the arguments)

05.08.2022 12:54AM

#26

-->

@RationalMadman

@whiteflame

Appears you two have some interest in this debate If you wanted to vote

05.06.2022 06:57AM

#25

Get ready to vote!

05.06.2022 04:21AM

#24

-->

@Novice

As a courtesy reminder, you are down to three hours.

05.05.2022 11:16AM

#23

-->

@RationalMadman

Let's keep it that I am not saying anything about anyone.

RationalMadman

05.05.2022 06:40AM

#22

-->

@Novice

Firstly, why would you use a sample size of 1 (your debate with him) to judge the weight of his skill overall?

Secondly, if you think he isn't strong in this debate, it will be your bitter downfall. I won't teach you more, sign up to my coaching.

05.05.2022 01:35AM

#21

Going through some of my opponents arguments has made me realise a lot about how the perceptions others (particularly the active community of DART and the people in this comments section hold for certain users are not at all an accurate representation of their debating skill or honesty.
I look forward to the end of this debate!

05.03.2022 04:33PM

#20

-->

@Bones

Given some of the /interesting/ tactics utilized in this debate, I am burnt out on this topic right now. However, I'll keep your offer in mind.

The next debate I have planned is against Pie, on if banning users for doxing is corrupt (or a closely related resolution), with the stakes of me resigning from the moderation team if he wins. He is very sure of himself, and desperately wants me gone, but is having a time shortage at the moment.

Bones

05.03.2022 09:51AM

#19

-->

@Barney

Me and you can run this debate if you wish.

ADreamOfLiberty

05.03.2022 02:27AM

#18

-->

@Novice

I'm paying attention, this is an important resolution.

I've noted that you didn't both agree on BoP before you started, so I will happily be using the correct BoP rules.

"Moving forward, CON has the burden of proof and must provide any evidence, or make an argument that demonstrates this." - Pro

This is correct, BoP is not something that can be manipulated out of existence by rearranging the assertion. If there is a tradition on DART that Pro is always the one with BoP then Novice should have made the resolution "Chauvin is a racist" and taken Con. Regardless that is the positive assertion, and that is what carries a BoP.

There is a technical difference between knowing something false and treating something as false, but it is a difference that is not captured well in the English language. We use the same sentence to describe not believing in and dismissing the spaghetti monster as we do to describe proving there isn't one. When proof of absence is impossible or very unlikely it is dishonest to assume that was the claim.

whiteflame

05.02.2022 01:22PM

#17

-->

@Novice

Not sure what you're expecting. Most of the interest in this debate will likely be in the outcome, though even for someone like me who is keeping up with the debate as it goes, I'm not really interested in providing running commentary. I will say that setting the character limit so high was... a choice, one that might put off other voters depending on how long the remaining rounds are.

05.02.2022 01:06PM

#16

This debate should have a larger pool of interest than it currently has.

05.01.2022 06:49AM

#15

-->

@Novice

Interesting R2... I’m traveling right now. You may expect my replies on Monday.